Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
rm per WP:BAN; commentary from block-evading user removed |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:I think that a binding content decision is required. I have expressed my opinions on the method to do so in Workshop, but I don't feel another drawn out RFC is what this dispute or the community really needs, and alternative methods should be explored. <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC) |
:I think that a binding content decision is required. I have expressed my opinions on the method to do so in Workshop, but I don't feel another drawn out RFC is what this dispute or the community really needs, and alternative methods should be explored. <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::An enforced truce sounds like a great idea. I'd like to move on. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC) |
::An enforced truce sounds like a great idea. I'd like to move on. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
There was an enforced truce, so to speak, for YEARS regarding the lead sentence. That was disrupted by editors a few months ago who simply ignored the protocol that had been established by consensus and had worked for several years to avoid precisely the mess that ensued recently. Here is the genesis of the current edit war: |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&action=historysubmit&diff=433335523&oldid=433332610 JJL started the current edit war] when he seemingly ignored the years of consensus and the lengthy discussions that produced that consensus lead sentence (as well as the warning on the talk page alerting him to that consensus) with a trite and dismissive edit summary ''(this is clearly advocacy--"death" is a highly charged term here and not a medical one (does an embryo 'die'?)'', which ignored the hard work of dozens and dozens and dozens of editors over the years. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=433346232 Lionelt noted the problem with JJL's edit (lack of consensus and not respecting the genesis of the long-standing lead) and restored] the long-standing consensus lead sentence. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=433346232 JJL ignored Lionelt and reverted Lionelt's reversion], thereby restoring his disruptive edit (although JJL incorrectly claimed in his edit summary that it was not a reversion). |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=433393512 MastCell removed the POV tag] (despite the bold warnings all over the page about the history of the lead sentence and its inclusion of the word death and despite Lionelt's mention of the lack of consensus), falsely claiming that "a single editor" objected to the deletion (and apparently MastCell considered it was good to have a POV tag when some editors wanted the word "death" removed, but after the word "death" was removed without consensus, it was suddenly a bad idea to have a POV tag?). |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=433407760 Michael_C_Price restored the long-standingconsensus lead sentence]. |
|||
*The article was then frozen for 3 days by Fastily. |
|||
*The article was then semi-protected by Andrew_c. |
|||
*Someone added a modifier to the word death. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=434177825 JJL restored the long-term consensus lead], giving the rationale that the a potential change to the lead sentence to remove death was under discussion (which was a good call). |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=434259405 NuclearWarfare removed the long-standing consensus lead by removing the word death and substituting a reference to viability] (despite objections and a clear lack of any new consensus). The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=434342444 contemporary talk page] shows that there was no consensus for this controversial and contentious change. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&action=historysubmit&diff=434467269&oldid=434411296 Str1977 restored the long-standing consensus lead], which was (and still is) the most recent consensus lead. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&action=historysubmit&diff=434792954&oldid=434335851 NuclearWarfare added some cherry-picked references to the article] (over the course of a few days) that would support NuclearWarfare's desired non-consensus version of the lead sentence. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&action=historysubmit&diff=436004814&oldid=435921150 Jmh649 (aka Doc James) deleted death and added a viability reference], which did not enjoy consensus and was a contentious edit, coyly referencing the cherry-picked references cited by NuclearWarfare ("altered to reflect references"). A few minutes before he made this edit, Jmh649/DocJames was invovled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=436175973#Fresh_approach_needed substantive discussion on the talk page] in which there was clearly no consensus for the change, and in fact an objection to the change was made with copious medical references to verify the validity of the long-standing consensus version. Yet he made the edit anyway. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=436004814 JJL jumpd in to copy-edit (and endorse)] the new wording. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=436117056 DMSBel tried to come up with a compromise] that acknowledged the validity of the long-standing consensus, but included the concerns of the handful of edit warriors (JJL, Nuclear, and DocJames). |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=436140830 ArtifexMayhem then divined that a new consensus existed, so he reverted] to the new non-consensus version. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=436171174 DMSBel restored the long-standing consensus] version. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=436176880 PhGustaf received the same divination as Artifex, and reverted] to the new non-consensus version. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=436193147 DMSBel put in a tag] since the lack of a new consensus had been repeatedly and contentiously ignored by a few agenda-driven editors. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=436250955 Lionelt chimed in to restore the long-standing consensus] and note the lack of any new consensus. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=436270976 JJL reverted to the non-consensus] version, voicing a desite to make the new edit-war non-consensus version the default version until there is a new consensus. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=436339537 Michal_C_Price restored the long-standing consensus] version. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=next&oldid=436342481 OrangeMarlin reverted to the non-consensus version] and labeled the long-standing vetted-by-anyone-and-everyone consensus version as the "POV" version. At about the same time he began insulting editors who disagred with him in the most uncivil and over-the-top manner. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/71.3.234.41|71.3.234.41]] ([[User talk:71.3.234.41|talk]]) 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/71.3.234.41|71.3.234.41]] ([[User talk:71.3.234.41|talk]]) 16:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:56, 31 August 2011
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Will an enforced truce be useful?
I'd like an opinion from the editors "in the trenches" of that particular dispute. Without addressing the wider problem of how to handle politically volatile subjects in general (which Jclemens is looking into), how would everyone feel about a solution similar to that which we put forth with naming in Ireland?
I.e.: construct some community process where a guided binding content decision is taken, and then enforce that decision for a period of time. In other words, a forcible truce that – while certain to not make anyone completely happy – would defuse the problem for a period of time and allow everyone to stop wasting so much energy and goodwill on that aspect to the detriment of everything else? — Coren (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think that a binding content decision is required. I have expressed my opinions on the method to do so in Workshop, but I don't feel another drawn out RFC is what this dispute or the community really needs, and alternative methods should be explored. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- An enforced truce sounds like a great idea. I'd like to move on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)